And I really wish this wasn't the case, especially since personal circumstances make it unlikely I'll survive the coming hot civil war, but I just don't see the Left giving up, or at least not until enough of them are killed they slink away for a generation or two, as has been the historical pattern.

The blue haired BLM-SJW crowd rioting for Hillary on Soros's dime do not impress me as having the minimal mental faculties necessary to understand the two sided nature of a treaty. Maybe I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure there is no good faith negotiation with amoral religious fanatics.

“China rejuvenescent! It was but a step to China rampant. She discovered a new pride in herself and a will of her own…The real danger lay in the fecundity of her loins…. The process was simple. First came the Chinese immigration (or, rather, it was already there, having come there slowly and insidiously during the previous years). Next came the clash of militia-soldiers, followed by their families and household baggage. And finally came their settling down as colonists in the conquered territory.”- Jack London, "The Unparalleled Invasion."

Coloreds may never understand: "It was not suddenly bred, it will not swiftly abate, through the chilled years ahead, when time shall count from the date, that the Saxon began to hate." But we are benevolent and magnanimous, so they will ultimately benefit.

The whole much abused treaty thing between the Europeans and the natives was never really workable. It was a European idea that did not fit in with the cultural tendencies of the natives. They never adhered well to the treaties and neither did us white eyes. Eventually the whole process became such a fraud that everybody on both sides knew it was a fraud even as they made treaties. The Indian chefs did it for the handouts and the whites did it for moral cover.

And on the other side there was no such thing as an "Indian" population, only individual tribal groups. The final death knell for most of the east of the Mississippi tribal Indians was when they were moved to the west of the Mississippi in the new "permanent" tribal lands. That put them in contact with the much more dangerous horse warrior Indians of the plains and led to the virtual extermination of several tribal groups.

Our reaction to them and how we treated "them" was a mix of real paternalism, real brutality; with a heavy duty overly of self interest behaviour on both sides. Which is to say, the usual thing. They lost not for moral reasons, our villainy, but because they were a stone age people who were not compatible with the agrarian European people. Had they won, the outcome would have been a extermination of our population. It would have been typical, brutal tribal warfare. What they were doing to each other before we showed up.

White men took America from the Red by force, deceit and murder. Intentionally.

A white man that actually looks at facts.White men took America from the Red by force, deceit and murder. Intentionally.

And then there is us white people regaining control of Europe from the Nazis. Gosh, I guess there was force involved, an army. And murder, you know, killing, war and stuff. We bombed civilian populations, murdered troops on the other side, etc.. And their was racist stuff, the Germans were the "Hun" and so on.

So, do you condemn our actions in WWII?

The way of the world, that's all. And selectively accusing one side of villainy while ignoring the villainy other side is bias, not analysis.

Which is exactly what the Indians did to each other from time immemorial. Except that we left some of them alive, unlike the Indians, who exterminated the loser without mercy.

Don't be ridiculous. More Indians survived under their lack of mercy than did under White conquest and rule.

Stop trying to justify it. It was wrong. It was evil. It was immoral. But it happened and what's done is done. Worry more about surviving it being done to you than trying to ex post facto rationalize the evil behavior of your forebears.

Dear Red Man, We can put a bucket of KFC with extra hemlock and kill more didndus than you could with 3 arrows.

@Coal Fired Brisket: Why don't you use your real name: Tiny D*ck.

Same reason this guy didn't use is real picture on meet up aps. Funny when it was a black moslem using GRINDR to serial kill gays in 3 states US JEWS NEWS didn't cover it, but a white guy in the UK https://www.yahoo.com/news/gay-date-rape-serial-killer-stephen-port-jailed-153457367.html

especially since personal circumstances make it unlikely I'll survive the coming hot civil war

Move out of Die Verse City to Whitopia, preferably a Whitopia you have armed relatives at.

Help a dummy out. What's a POC? Don't try to trick him guys, I means Peon Often C#cksucking, take $5 down to the Home Depot wet backs to verify.

Johnny,Your bullshit SJW sophistry is noted.Killing Nazis, which is well and good, has nothing to do with destroying a native people and taking their land simply because you can.Your deceptive sophistry is precisely why you are a liar and not worthy of stealing the oxygen you do.

Better yet, once the White reservations are in place for a while, all the colored parts of the map would be bankrupt (and probably smoldering heaps) within a few years. We could then retake the land, on our terms.

VD said:"Don't be ridiculous. More Indians survived under their lack of mercy than did under White conquest and rule."

that's a mighty fine straw man you've built. Be a shame if somethin' happened to it. Indians were violent neolithic peoples. They could only do so much damage with their methods. On the other hand white methods of warfare and asymmetrical immunity to various plagues damn well nearly exterminated them.

Preciate the heads up.I'm quite new to all this computer stuff,(being a life-long retrogrouch-I still hunt with a model 1894 winchester) and I am not yet familiar with all of these abbreviations. What do you want from a dumb truck driver?

Thank you very kindly for your concern. It is much appreciated. We know that you're somewhat disappointed in white behavior as of late, seeing as how we took your land by force, then through progressive indolence, sloth and benign neglect, allowed a weaker, less potent amalgamation of interests leave to push us to the far corners of our own possession.

However, I wouldn't worry that your legacy (a strong, proud people laid low by your enemy's technological superiority) will be repeated in this instance. We still have our weapons, and those of us who keep them sacred will employ them to great effect should the moment arrive. Our enemy, you see, harries and annoys, but does not, and cannot, commit. Commitment takes courage, which they utterly lack. Yet when we commit, and commit we eventually will, well now that will indeed be a fearful day among them. Only this time, we won't name our future weapons in honor of our enemies. The "Blackhawk," "Apache," etc., will never be replaced by the "Hipster Missile," the "Raza Tank" or the "BLM Carrier."

Sincerely, White People

PS - It never ceases to amaze me that the left hive-mind states that any populist revolution will be put down by the military, or law enforcement (local, state or federal), yet fails to make the connection that the very personnel who primarily constitute the gun carriers and leather jackboots are to be found mainly amongst the very populations most likely to revolt!

The Indians (NAs) had a society that functioned in their environment without technology. Going to the harsh environments (think bears and blizzards) will create a culture that adapts. The Nez Pers survived and even thrived.

The European culture had it harder, had Christ, and developed science and technology. The (pagan) Romans would have defeated the Indians in a far worse way if there was trans-Atlantic transport 2000 years ago.

A wolf is DIFFERENT than a sheep, not better or worse morally or in most other dimensions.

Christianity might have brought a yardstick with which to measure morality, but everyone fails to measure up - the Indians in their darkness doing what they needed to do as "heathen", but even worse, the baptized whites that did things they DID NOT need to do as Christians.

Dear Native American, instead of Casinos, you should become arms dealers and free gun-commerce zones. Not only could you defend yourselves (see the Dakota Access Pipeline - DAPL), but would make a lot of cash selling things like suppressors, Full-auto weapons, etc.

Your reservations are also located right near where there is less "vibrancy", and lots of Christian Whites that would get a new appreciation and fight against liberalism.

Okay, so if the United States was founded by criminals, Americans were criminals all the way through, and we have no viable history except crime, no cultural heroes except criminals -- what exactly are we white Americans supposed to use to inspire ourselves to survive?

If all our achievements are basically illegitimate, what are we fighting for?

We should hand over the keys to the Mexicans, who are at least partly Indian, and then head back to Europe (except that it's already disastrously overcrowded, culturally dissimilar in a lot of ways, and probably doesn't want any of us).

This is bad rhetoric.

"White Americans should fight for their survival because their country is an illegitimate realization of evil and crime, with no justification or viable achievements, and which belongs to someone else! And the Mexicans resemble the actual owners a lot more than you do! But get out there and fight for your existence because you exist, even though you should be utterly ashamed of everything that every one of your ancestors did!"

Yeah, that's a real winner. Definitely will inspire people with the spirit of resistance.

Agreed that giving up OUR LANDS sucks, but they are they even our lands anymore...?

Regardless, the idea of White reservations is merely a rhetorical tool. It leads the White to fantasize about the bliss of having only White neighbors again. It also leads the shitlibs into a dilemma: they can't embrace the idea, as doing so destroys their sacred'diversity' argument, and they can't come up with any good reasons to oppose it, as their only honest argument is 'The POCs can't survive on their own!'

especially since personal circumstances make it unlikely I'll survive the coming hot civil war

Move out of Die Verse City to Whitopia, preferably a Whitopia you have armed relatives at.

Oh, I have, my current "Whitopia" has something like the pre-1965 demographics we've talked about before. It's other stuff which I don't want to detail to avoid providing info to doxers, and it's not the sort of thing that admits to much mitigation.

White colonists killed a few million Indians -- after 90% of them were wiped out by smallpox. Subsequently, white science saved several BILLION lives worldwide. White legal systems abolished systematic murder and chattel slavery. White people fought two successful wars, and a number of unsuccessful ones, for other people's freedom. Concepts such as equality before the law and universal human rights were invented by whites. Compared to other races, whites are far more peaceful, tolerant, and generous.

If every white person shares the blame for the evils of his culture, he also shares the glory for its accomplishments. We can cheerfully admit our failings, because they are utterly overshadowed by our accomplishments. Our debts have been paid in full, many times over. We earned this land with our sweat and blood, and it belongs to us until the end of time.

We welcomed strangers from every part of the world, so long as they respected our culture. They have broken the contract and repaid us with hatred and violence. Therefore, the offer is withdrawn.

Shelby Steele talks about "moral authority," and how blacks have taken it away from whites. We need to take it back. We need to start talking about the moral superiority of white people and white culture.

White colonists killed a few million Indians -- after 90% of them were wiped out by smallpox. Subsequently, white science saved several BILLION lives worldwide.

That's irrelevant. Whites still killed them and stole their land. That crime can never be erased. Unless it is admitted, repented, and forgiven, Americans will not believe they have the moral high ground to defend the land they stole from the Indians.

Just read the long list of signed treaties that were broken. There is no hiding from it.

Indians aren't bitter about this, for the most part, but they would like white people to stop lying about it and trying to rationalize it.

@ wyrdI dug the video, unfrozen caveman lawyer. Worth a chuckle, I suppose. I'm hip to all this technology- computers and what have you, but I still think the epitome of technological development was the introduction of smokeless gunpowder and non-corrosive primers. After that, what's a guy really need?

The next time someone throws the T. Jefferson "Rightful Liberty" quote at you, remind them, that although Andrew Jackson removed the Indians, it was Thomas Jefferson who proposed it, for their well-being.

VD wrote:Yeah, that's a real winner. Definitely will inspire people with the spirit of resistance.

Lying to yourself and trying to deny your guilt is no way to a clean conscience. Repent. That is, after all, the Christian way.

Oh, and if a tribe tells you not to build a pipeline for one reason or another, don't fucking build it. Just stop.

The entire SJW movement and the anti-whiteness movement is repenting for every white crime. White Guilt is the entire subject of their philosophy. It is the cause of mass immigration, cultural deconstructionism, and all the rest.

Their idea is that whites need the forgiveness and moral approval of non-whites in order to justify their existence. Your idea is precisely the same. They say that whites need to subordinate themselves to the judgment and control of non-whites in order to atone for their crimes. You say precisely the same.

We cannot undo what has been done. Therefore, the only possible atonement is to do to ourselves precisely what they did to us. Which is exactly what we're doing.

You've just cut through to the core; the horseshoe has become a circle.

I dug the video, unfrozen caveman lawyer. Worth a chuckle, I suppose. I'm hip to all this technology- computers and what have you, but I still think the epitome of technological development was the introduction of smokeless gunpowder and non-corrosive primers. After that, what's a guy really need?

RR have you heard of Brings the Lightning by Peter Grant & Castalia House. http://amzn.to/2902Oe3

I get that we'd never be offered one, but any White 'reservation' (& benefits comparable to indians) with demographically sized land, coastline for shipping & recreation and good farm land sounds like paradise in 2016:

In the taking of the central area of North America, there was a pattern that developed. There would be a white population with treaty Indians to the west. Usually a few white people would end up in the Indian territory, perhaps in violation of the treaty or perhaps doing commerce with the Indians. If some of the Indians at some point felt aggrieved, they would act out in the form of terrorism, attacking targets of opportunity in a manner that grievously offended European sensibilities. That would be raping and killing women along with, if they had the leisure time, torturing all the captives to death, including children.

The usual European response was to form up an army and drive the Indians off their territory. Then another treaty would be made and it was wash-rinse-and-repeat. What made the process deadly for the Indian population was repetition. Some would be killed in war, and most likely many more would die because of the stress of moving. Most primitive populations don't move easily or with much success.----As for sin, all territory everywhere is held by right of conquest. Legitimacy usually comes from holding it for a long time. Thus the Jews refer back to three thousand years ago in their claim to Palestine, and their at least semi fictional version of how they took in the Bible. They allege to have exterminated the local population.

Northern Europe used to be a Celtic race, and now much of it is Germanic. They displaced or killed off the Celtic people. Ditto for the Great or White Russians who are Scandinavian (Viking).The black skinned race is one of the newest and they probably developed in the Upper Nile region. The reason Africa is filled with Blacks is that they killed off or displaced the original dark brown people, the Bushmen, who occupied much of the continent. Other areas cannot be documented because they occurred to far in the past. That would be with the exception of the Cro-Magnon caveman population, mostly killed off or displaced by us Homo Sapiens.

We are a combative spices that has been killing itself off from the beginning of time. So, who is to apologize to who and for what? And do we all go back to our original territories or feel all guilty?

And just to add to the list. The Japanese were originally a mongolian people. They mostly murdered off the original population in the Japan. The little we know of them comes from a few mixed race people in the southernmost part of Japan.

Their idea is that whites need the forgiveness and moral approval of non-whites in order to justify their existence. Your idea is precisely the same. They say that whites need to subordinate themselves to the judgment and control of non-whites in order to atone for their crimes. You say precisely the same.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

We cannot undo what has been done. Therefore, the only possible atonement is to do to ourselves precisely what they did to us. Which is exactly what we're doing.

As I said, you falsely characterized what I said. Do it again and you'll be banned and spammed.

Of course you can't undo what has been done. But you can stop lying about it and stop rationalizing it. You can apologize and ask for forgiveness. And then your conscience will be clean and you can stop thinking that the new invaders are a just punishment for your past sins.

Most whites don't try to rationalize slavery. Most of the smarter ones bitter regret their forebears failing to pick their own cotton. But most do as you've done, and try to declare "right of conquest", and thereby give up any claim to the land... which increasingly is not theirs anyhow.

I'm not advising this for the benefit of my Indian side. It's too late for that. I'm advising it so that whites Americans will recognize what they have done and through it recognize what is happening to them.

Of course, I don't expect they will. They'll probably leave it until too late too.

Ironsides wrote:Their idea is that whites need the forgiveness and moral approval of non-whites in order to justify their existence. Your idea is precisely the same. They say that whites need to subordinate themselves to the judgment and control of non-whites in order to atone for their crimes. You say precisely the same.

Pretty sure he's saying that Whites to form a morally consistent view of OURSELVES, so that we of ourselves will have a clean conscience, because many without a clear conscience will not have the morale to stand up for themselves.

The accuser whispers, "You have sinned and deserve death."

The way of the broken man is to agree that he has sinned, and suicidally bare his throat to his enemy.

The way of the natural man is to deny he has sinned, and fight for survival.

The way of the Christian is to acknowledge his own sin, repent of it, and fight for victory.

VD wrote:That's irrelevant. Whites still killed them and stole their land. That crime can never be erased. Unless it is admitted, repented, and forgiven, Americans will not believe they have the moral high ground to defend the land they stole from the Indians.

I had to puzzle this one out. You're saying that we have to condemn the dispossession of the Indians before we can condemn the dispossession of whites. If we try to justify it, we pave the way for some other race to do the same thing to us.

This is why the 16 Points are so important. We need to insist on our own moral framework, instead of accepting the Left's framework.

Alt-Righters have been marginalized and backed into a corner for so long that we've adopted a defensive posture, so forgive us if we're a bit slow.

As one with Scottish blood I confess to terrible crimes against the native Picts and seizing their lands. So to did my Norse blooded kinsfolk who also invaded parts of Scotland. For this too I confess.

I confess my sin through my Saxon blood at driving out the native Britons and taking all that they had. My guilt odes not end here. Norman blood taints me with the bloody conquest of 1066 and the dispossessing of the Saxons. I therefore forgive myself for my sins inherited through my Norman blood.

I confess my sins to the Irish attainted through my English blood and the conquest of Ireland.

I confess my sins to the French people who suffered under the terrible English plundering raids and invasions of the English kings...but also forgive myself through my Norman blood for this...because that almost like being French...isn't it?

I confess my sins...oh to hell with this nonsense.

I Don't Care.

If they can destroy us, they will.

We should destroy of neutralize them before they do these things.

We have burned out cities filled with civilians and children. Nuclear weapons have vaporized our enemies, we have slaved, massacred, stolen, cheated, and done all manner of mean and nasty things.

So has everyone, because human beings are bastard coated bastards with bastard filling. And I am OK with that.

An amoral perspective of zero-sum landrace competition can reasonably expect sympathy based on genetic affinity, and perhaps even as part of a broad K alliance against r subversion and civilizational dysgenics.

Is there a moral dimension to the territorial competition between lions and hyenas? Perhaps not, but one may aesthetically prefer lions to hyenas.

I think what VD is trying to get to here is a situation where there is a desire to settle things. That only occurs if both parties want to settle. If that desire is absent you do nothing but convict yourself with an apology. Nothing gets settled.

VD wrote:Then don't expect any sympathy from anywhere else as White America is invaded, conquered and replaced. You're half-done already.Sympathy? Really?When was the last time we had sympathy? Even Americans born in Portugal of Portuguese parents don't have sympathy for us.

Hey, not my problem anymore. I don't live there and I am reliably informed no one is doing anything wrong.An immigrant is doing nothing morally wrong by moving here, nor by living as he wishes, short of crime, nor by voting for his own interest, if we let him. He is, however, undermining our ability to live as we wish. So he has to go.Right and wrong aren't the issue. We and ours are the issue.

Eventually we'll have fiction that dramatizes the 16 Points. Something like STARSHIP TROOPERS, with the wise teacher explaining to the callow youth how we learned the lessons of the terrible race war 500 years ago, and that's why every ethnic group has its own sovereign territory.

This IS confusing. I have thought in those terms about the abortion issue but hadn't thought about the Indian displacement in the same way. (I am part Indian myself, though not close to half).

What happened to the Indians was a tragedy, especially with the broken treaties, and that part always bothered me. The war to the knife was less bothersome to me because at least it was war and known and accepted as war.

We've been beaten over the head with white guilt for everything so much that the reflexive response now is "I don't care."

Because of that, your advice here seems like a sudden turn, and I'm not intelligent enough to follow it this fast.

If you have time to break it down for us slower people that would be great, as I trust your judgement that this is important.

Middle Tennessee was a hunting ground for the Cherokee, Shawnee, and Chickasaw. The land was not owned, only used. Same as today. Ask my property tax assessor. Those tribes by the way replaced the mound builders who replaced whoever. Didn't they all come from Russia to begin with? Damn, another victory for Putin.

"You can apologize and ask for forgiveness. And then your conscience will be clean and you can stop thinking that the new invaders are a just punishment for your past sins."

I have nothing to apologize for. I haven't cheated, or screwed, or stolen from, or killed a single black, Indian or Mexican. There is nothing bothering my conscience. As you said, what's been done cannot be undone. But I didn't do any it, so quit trying to make me feel guilty.

These efforts trying to make me and mine apologize over things long done, decades or centuries ago, by people I - and you - never knew? All that does is build animosity.

It will be a cold day in hell before I walk up to some lifelong ward of the federal government and ask for forgiveness for events I had zero control over.

Reservations will one day go the way of the Dodo because in the real world - without massive taxpayer support - most cannot survive.

Maybe that's what you should be concerned about rather than apologies from people who don't owe you one.

The coloreds are sympathetic...not! Sweet Christ, I wish reality was different and we could all buy the world a Coke and teach it to sing in perfect harmony; but it's not. Identity politics is the name of the game and you better be willing to play that game or you and yours die. It's as simple as that.

Bob wrote:Reservations will one day go the way of the Dodo because in the real world - without massive taxpayer support - most cannot survive.

Or become enclaves with a genuinely self-governed population. My experience of Indians and the reservation system here in the Northwest doesn't give me a lot of hope in that possibility, but my mother grew up in a White town on a Sioux reservation in South Dakota, and the people and circumstances are quite different. If they were allowed to become real nations in the Westphalian sense, it would fix an awful lot of the dysfunction in the current system.

@88 What happened to the Indians was a tragedy, especially with the broken treaties, and that part always bothered me. The war to the knife was less bothersome to me because at least it was war and known and accepted as war.

What you are expressing here are European sentiments that were not shared by the Indian Nations in the day. And the kind of stand up battle that you and your European ancestors would want could not be had. The Indians would form up in an army, but the army was weak, and would break and run away very quickly. That produced victories of no consequence because there would be few killed and when the European army left the Indians would come back.

Indian war, the effective part, was terrorism. Not all that different from the current Arab terrorism. Imagine you are a colonial. You come across a burned out settlement. The women is laid out in a way that suggests mass rape and her body has been cut up in a variety of ways. The man is staked out and was tortured to death by fire, and the children are all tied to posts and were tortured to death by means that are still obvious. That was Indian warfare as it was commonly fought.

I suspect the treatment of Indians was more brutish that got documented. The frontier people took to hating them and when the fighting was small scale, got rid of the Indians by whatever means was necessary. Let's see, methods that would work: Invade the Indian Camp with the army in the fall and burn them out, thus insuring that most would die of exposure over winter. Murder every Indian you come to, acting out the adage that the only good Indian is a dead Indian. And so on.

To whom are we supposed to apologize?Who is going to forgive us?What is the path of repentance?Are we asking this of God, or instead of the Red Man? Both? Neither?

Looking back over my personal history, I seem to forget about murdering all those feather Indians. My family seems to have hushed it up too. Or just maybe I personally have nothing to apologize for, and this whole thing is an exercise in absurdity.

BTW, are the redskins going to apologize about killing off the Solutreans? And if so, can they even find any Solutreans to apologize to?

A personal Christ is for personal sins. If everybody attempts to bare their soul and apologize for something they never committed, then the next questions becomes how do they atone for such sins.

This whole thing is an impossible muddle intellectually and morally, something like a religious shit-test. Remind me again, how is a man supposed to respond to shit-tests ????

*shrugs* my impression of the colonial era is that all sides got what was coming to them. In particular, the Indians have already thoroughly avenged themselves on the relevant contemporary parties, in a manner beyond bestial.

Better to resist the corrupting influence of civilization before it extinguishes the tribal warrior ethos in America as it has in Europe - leaving behind only sheep and shearers. Domestication is worse than death.

"Let's you and him fight" was the game the masters played back when they hired Indians to catch white slaves and imported more servile blacks. Now they hire dindus to catch white slaves and import more servile browns.

Ego te absolvo. Such is my life. It's nice when someone figures it out as quickly as you did.

Eventually we'll have fiction that dramatizes the 16 Points. Something like STARSHIP TROOPERS, with the wise teacher explaining to the callow youth how we learned the lessons of the terrible race war 500 years ago, and that's why every ethnic group has its own sovereign territory.

You write it, we'll publish it.

It will be a cold day in hell before I walk up to some lifelong ward of the federal government and ask for forgiveness for events I had zero control over.

And that's why you are demoralized and totally unwilling to fight to defend yourselves. At least the Indians fought! White Americans are literally laying down to die without any resistance at all.

Hey... Red man... Brown man... i don't know if you've noticed... but we've taken your land every time we've bothered to try.

@ Johnny The book Lone Star: A History of Texas and Texas by T. R. Fehrenbach describes the conflict between the Indians and settlers pretty much as you described. Awful stuff, but the modern parallel is what goes on in any fight with Muslims involved. In fact, there were several passages of the book that sounded like a description of what Muslims today do in war, only it was talking about Indians.

The book also talked about the people who usually settled the frontier areas: people from the Scotch/Irish border who were used to border wars and were better suited to that kind of life than most Americans of the time.

The accounts of the border fighting reminds me of something John C Wright posted about the difference between fighting civilised people and uncivilised people (whose word cannot be trusted).

If I remember correctly he said that when you can't trust the surrender flag, when the enemy uses "dishonorable" tactics there is no room left for even surrender, and war to the death (extermination) of one side or the other is all that's left.

This! So much fudging this! When I tried to convince my college-aged niece earlier this year to vote for Trump, she replied "When was America great? Back during Indian times?" And My reply was "At they fought against their dispossession."

European culture was so much better than the native one, that it was almost impossible for the natives to resist or even to adapt. Even after the Europeans sold them guns, they generally didn't know how to fix them or how to manufacture their own gunpowder.For a long time the difference in technology wasn't too significant (bows were almost as good as primitive rifles, but there's a reason why the Europeans sailed first to North America and not the other way around), so European colonization was slow and limited, but by the 19th century there was no contest.Due to this difference, in Europeans' eyes, the natives' rights to the land were similar to the deer and buffaloes' rights to the land: legitimate, but insignificant. Not coincidentally, romanticizing natives took off roughly around the same time when the environmental movement took off. The people who loved the natives probably also believed in the Gaea hypothesis.If another culture manages to surpass the European culture as far as the Europeans surpassed the natives in America, Africa, Australia, Tasmania, Siberia, then Europeans will have the exact same fate.On the other hand, in Asia, where Europeans were confronting roughly equal cultures, the outcome was completely different. Nowadays there is no remaining European colony in Asia.Thus, Europeans should make sure they don't fall too much behind or, even better, keep a substantial advantage. Fortunately, it seems that the traditional European culture is well-suited for this race.

The native tribes didn't just fight, they fought well. They and the Byzantine Empire were the only people to drive off the Vikings. The Iroquois Confederacy played the Great Power game quite skillfully in the 1700s. And the Plains tribes fought with skill and courage.

They deserve a lot more respect as fighting men than they get these days.

It's other stuff which I don't want to detail to avoid providing info to doxers

Part of me wonders if shitlibs showed up at that Korean BQQ that I said I worked at. Fortunately having a travel temp job lets me throw off lots of regional data.

any White 'reservation' (& benefits comparable to indians) with demographically sized land, coastline for shipping & recreation and good farm land

Doesn't even need to be good farmland. Whites can build aquaponic greenhouses, earthship homes, & there have been underground homes in Australia on harsh land for over 100 years.http://metro.co.uk/2015/05/28/theres-a-whole-town-in-australia-that-lives-underground-5219091/

Mark Twain on the ignoble red savage:http://twain.lib.virginia.edu/projects/rissetto/redman.html"He is ignoble--base and treacherous, and hateful in every way. Not even imminent death can startle him into a spasm of virtue. The ruling trait of all savages is a greedy and consuming selfishness, and in our Noble Red Man it is found in its amplest development. His heart is a cesspool of falsehood, of treachery, and of low and devilish instincts. With him, gratitude is an unknown emotion; and when one does him a kindness, it is safest to keep the face toward him, lest the reward be an arrow in the back. To accept of a favor from him is to assume a debt which you can never repay to his satisfaction, though you bankrupt yourself trying. To give him a dinner when he is starving, is to precipitate the whole hungry tribe upon your hospitality, for he will go straight and fetch them, men, women, children, and dogs, and these they will huddle patiently around your door, or flatten their noses against your window, day aft er day, gazing beseechingly upon every mouthful you take, and unconsciously swallowing when you swallow! The scum of the earth!"

I do apologize for my ancestors failure to exterminate everyone of those two legged rats.

I for one, do not believe in collective guilt. I've never driven anyone off his land, and the people who demand "reparations" for something that happened not to themselves, but to people who lived and died long before they were born, are just opportunists looking for a supply of hand-outs.

The SJW ideology would tell you that you are to blame for the crimes of other people, simply because your skin is the same colour as theirs was. Also that you cannot atone for this except by your death. That's the natural outcome of their mindset - they reject Christ, and so they have no forgiveness. Don't give them an inch.

If I may interject as a fellow part-redskin, it is wrong and difficult to understand for the Native Europeans to give away our land. They were strong enough to take it, and they're strong enough to keep it.

Therefore, it must be a failure of will. So what's stopping them? If it's guilt, then just deal with it, apologize, move on and build the wall.

we have to condemn the dispossession of the Indians before we can condemn the dispossession of whites. If we try to justify it, we pave the way for some other race to do the same thing to us.

What do you mean "we", white man?

Eh, I understand the point Vox is making, and I agree there's no truth, decency, or even point in justifying dispossessing the Indians. But I'm unsold on the need to repent, at least not to anyone else. White people have been trying to repent for any slight we've made to another race for decades, and it's gotten us nothing but scorn and sorrow. Fuck that.

We don't need to justify taking the land in order to justify keeping it. As some folks have mentioned, none of us alive today took land from any Indian tribe. None of us enslaved a Black person. None of us kicked Mexicans off their land. Whatever our ancestors did, we're here now and have no where else to go. No where else to send our children. If that's not enough justification for defending our land against the new invaders, then I doubt having some council of the Tribes absolve us of our ancestors sins will provide any more justification or resolve.

Vox, you are correct that too many white people are not fighting, but what makes you think any further apologies will change that? My take is that our problem is too much apologizing, not too little.

Therefore, the only possible atonement is to do to ourselves precisely what they did to us. Which is exactly what we're doing.

The only possible atonement is to learn from your mistakes. Stop thinking you have a God-given right to run the whole planet. Drop the silly American exceptionalism nonsense. Fix your own problems and stop trying to overthrow other countries' governments. Go back to isolationism. It was a good policy. Let other countries fix their own damned problems.

And clean up the moral cesspit in your own country. Stop exporting your cultural degeneracy and filth.

You had a pleasant country once. You could make it a pleasant country again.

The left as it currently exists needs to be hunted down to extermination. Same with all the current elites. An apt phrase for them would be kill em all God will know his own. That or whites go quietly into the night.

Vox, I'm going to say this in the interest of being honest, but I've got a bone to pick with your posts here, I'll transcribe my thoughts on those below:

@55. Whoa, whoa, WHOA WTF VD? Did your account get hacked, because it looks like you went full SJW. OR are you being sarcastic? It doesn't look like you're being sarcastic.

You might want to rephrase what you said there.

I have no guilt to repent of for actions I was not part of. Will I look at history and admit that evil has occurred, and strive to not repeat the same mistakes OR allow the same mistakes to be repeated against me? Yes, but I had no part and will accept NO blame for the ill actions of my ancestors, just as I will accept no credit for their glorious actions. I need to stand on my own merit.

I will not repent for evils I have not committed.

@56. No, seriously, tell me you got hacked, because otherwise f*** you. The person you replied to has no guilt in that matter, and if they do, surely I, whose ancestors only moved here in the very late 1800s somehow do as well. No. Just no.

@75. Again, not apologizing for things I did not do. You need to get that alien parasite out of your brain before you go full SJW. You're getting a bit better here, but we already realize it was wrong. Stop telling us to apologize for things we didn't do.

@77. Seriously, where the f*** did your logic go.

@100. "It's nice when someone figures it out as quickly as you did." If this is what you meant, you wrote it in hands down the worst possible way. Actually, no, looking back, I don't think you meant what you're confirming here.

@104. This is certainly an element.

Really, Vox, all your comments and your OP before @55. are fine. I've no issues, but you seriously messed up on those from there to here. Let's lay it out:

#1: The only halfway valid logic I can upturn for you here relates to the doctrine of Original Sin, and sin passing down from fathers to their children. You can assume that some element of the "sins of the fathers" will pass down and be manifest in the children, however this is NOT always the case for every specific sin. Sure, it makes it much easier for sin to manifest, but it does not necessitate it.

#2: Even if you're going with a hardline "yes it does necessitate it, all men have sinned" approach to #1, so what? I should spend the rest of my life cataloguing and repenting for the sins of my fathers back to the creation of mankind? That sounds like a life spent with my talents buried in the ground to me. I learn history so I will not repeat it, and that is that.

#3: Let's take free will into this. Do you agree that sins are choices we make, or not? If not, I don't think it likely that you believe in free will. If so, let us look at sins as roads unto death. While my forefathers may set me on a road, it is I who choose to walk it. I have not chosen to walk the road of the commission of murder, or the commission of genocide, or the commission of thievery, for a few I have avoided.

#4: I have not walked in this sin, and so I have nothing to repent for. I have already recognized it as sin and eschewed it, and understand its nature and am willing, able, intend to and am fighting it as I may.

#5: Understanding the existence and nature of sin is not the same as repenting of it, and I do not require repenting of it to resist it or fight it when I have not walked in it. Even though I require God's power to successfully win, we both know that requiring the power of God to defeat evil does not mean that we have done evil. On the contrary, it means that we have chosen to seek God in order to stand against evil.

If you take issue with my logic or conclusions here, by all means, have at me, but until you can present a more convincing argument than the bullshit "apologize or lose" you're posting above, I will choose to ignore that specific conclusion of yours on this subject.

If you hold any sort of collective identity, any pride or warm fuzzy feelings towards the past accomplishments of your own people, then you don't get a 'I personally did nothing, so phhhht!' out when it comes to things you don't like.

WE did do something. You may not feel bad about it, but don't let that be because you are somehow divorced from it. Collective identity requires some measure of collective responsibility, good and bad. It's either yours or it isn't, in whole. You can't pick and choose.

@133. Perhaps I'm a cold bastard, but I don't hold a collective identity like that as far as I know. If I'm pushed into voting and acting as part of an identity block for my own interests, I will do so, but it doesn't mean that I glory in the glories or share in the sins of those who have gone before me, or them.

I am me.

My family is my family.

The society is the society.

My ancestors are my ancestors.

I can be glad of the accomplishments of my ancestors without glorying in them or assigning them to my own merit, and I do so, so I will neither repent for their sins.

As Americans haven't we all enjoyed our forefathers 'stolen horse?' And as such an apology is due. Not returning anything its not possible anyway. But a humble apology is due. Then we can pivot and regain our land.

VD - How often does the average white guy even think of Indians? I'd question whether this is a key issue holding back Americans in defense of our home, but I could be the odd man out.

Regardless, let's say that this actually is a barrier to seeing the moral rightness of our own cause. You say we need to admit a wrong, repent (which i think are a pretty easy ask), AND be forgiven. What does 'forgiven' looks like in this case? Who are we asking, and what happens in the case that they respond with a 'FUCK OFF!'?

1) I think it is pretty clear that there were dirty tricks, double dealing, and rapine and murder on both sides. So nobody gets to say that their hands are clean.

2) It is also clear that internecine struggles between various tribes are not the same thing as a wholly separate civilization (European colonists) coming in and trying to extirpate the natives. In the same way that wars between various European principalities are not the same thing as the attempt of the Turks to take Vienna. The difference is somehow palpable but I am not sure of what exactly it consists. I think it is the case of a wholly other or alien worldview seeking to impose itself and its kind on another group.

3) That said I think there is a difference between repenting and acknowledging. I cannot repent for what I have not done. I can however acknowledge the injustices committed by my ancestors and understand that their actions are the reason others feel justified in dispossessing me and mine from land that we hold now.

4) I think for Whites in America to be able to hold on to our lands we have to make sure that Red Indians have real sovereignty and the ability, without interference from the U.S. government, to do their own thing and sink or swim on their own going forward. In my view carving out real and viable territories for the tribes that are left and them treating them as we would treat wholly sovereign nations is a start in the right direction. Let them have borders, border controls, passports and visas if they choose. Let them wholly own and control the territory. Give them a one time check for damages and then leave them alone. Ask if they will allow a U.S. Ambassador to be assigned to their country or if they would like to cut off all diplomatic relations. Let them be real nations instead of dependent minorities. (To be fair, I think we should do the same thing with African Americans who can show that they are descendants of slaves. Let them have their own nation/borders/etc. with fully sovereign control. Pay them a one time reparation fee and then leave them alone and insist they leave us alone. Then they can be free of the dreaded White man and be able to make their own decisions without outside interference.

5) Will any of these things solve the long term animosities that exist between these peoples? Probably not. But it will at least get white people out of the role of trying to direct the lives of Red Indians or Blacks in ways that may be fine for whits but prove disastrous from them.

6) Mexicans do not need a territory carved out of the U.S. There already is a homeland for the offspring of Spaniards and Aztecs and Mayans, etc. It is called Mexico. Any mestizo who feels like he is not getting fair shake in White North America knows what direction home is in.

I think the point is that Whites have to right a wrong our ancestors committed. I don't think the word "repent" is the correct one since that implies guilt for those fixing the problem. But I think the sentiment that an injustice was done and we have the power to fix it even if we are not culpable for it is correct. And doing that takes the rhetorical stick people are using to try to dispossess whites. If we say, "Yep. Bad stuff was done but we've given the descendants of those effected a way to move beyond that" then we have a defensible position and the moral high ground when others come and say "You evil white folks stole this land so we can steal if from you." We can just smile at that point and say, "We've done what we could to make good on that and you can go to hell."

Should I apologize for Guilaume de Pinel, ny distant grandfather who rode with William the Conqueror? Should The British apologize to French Canadians? Should the Cajuns apologize to the Indians? Should the Haida apologize to the Tlingit and Duwamish and Klamath, whose territory they invaded and over ran? It's psychotic to even consider.

But if I find money someone stole from a neighbor I can give back the money, since the money is in my possession.

If I find that it was my great grandfather who stole the money I can still give back what is left from what has already been spent with no apology necessary since I did not steal it even though I do have some of what was stolen left in my possession.

Exerpt. There are many threads running though this piece, too many to spell out here. These ones (war, ascent, quiet heroes, other), are relevant-

https://www.scribd.com/document/319906948/The-Solution-to-the-Ice-Age-ExtinctionsThis one is a detective story, with some unwitting suspects, their multiple victims, and quiet heroes. The tale has been told before, with us... as the prime murder suspect...

… ﬁrst the new life spreads out across the surface, there to ascend vertically into the space above...

the two types of... life forms were in a struggle to the death. Each was the poison of the other. This may have been the ﬁrst existential war on Earth, a war which only one of them could win…

In this long global battle, Life had remodeled the air and the water of an entire planet, but there was an accumulating cost, a debit on account, to be paid for dearly come the future...

...The Great Plains Indians could not subdue the immense herds of bison that ranged across the prairie lands. Even after the gifts of the horse and the gun, there were still too many buffalo and not enough Indians. They couldn’t build cities because cities need farms, and farms would be plundered by the Million Bison Army...

With the passing of the glorious beasts during the last and worst Ice Age, the way was made clear around the world for Man to come occupy the land...

Farms and towns were invented even as the last ice sheets were retreating to the North. Then, a few lifetimes ago, our quiet heroes showed us how to rip the coal from the ground and turn it into the power of the Industrial Revolution, paving the way for the human population to increase many times over...

The Earth is getting greener now, across the globe. Our ascended satellites watch it growing, each decade more lush than the one before.

In order to continue to exist and to prosper, life on Earth needs one more trick...

Ironsides wrote:We should hand over the keys to the Mexicans, who are at least partly IndianMeaning, descended from the Siberians who genocided their way into possession of the Americas which were already occupied by the European-descended Solutreans, who created the Clovis culture.

White people were the pioneers twice over. All the Americans did was take back what rightfully belonged to their cousins, and was properly inherited by Europeans.

if the United States was founded by criminals, Americans were criminals all the way through, and we have no viable history except crime, no cultural heroes except criminalsThe left loves moral inversion. Its heroes are actually criminals, and its criminals are actually heroes. This is no exception.

Just another midwit here, but the way I'm reading this is that whites have good reason (moral/rhetorical/whathaveyou) to say to themselves and to the nation as a whole that we did indeed dispossess people from their territory and subject them to foreign governance/invasion. Our affairs with the tribes going forward should be remedied. HOWEVER, we are the people, and we are the culture of America. Just because dispossession has happened doesn't mean we have moral obligation to let it happen. Indeed, history shows up that we our obligation is precisely the opposite - to defend our people and our way of life and (since we are nice white people) strive to rectify/not repeat the sins and/or mistakes of our ancestors.

If you live in a given country, the past and present sins of that country are going to come back to you, whether you like it or not. We certainly hold other countries to this standard. If some country in the Middle East harbors a terrorist groups that commits an act of war against us, it's going to get bombed in retaliation and its people are going to die.

Even before Vox dropped this particular bombshell, I regarded the United States as morally culpable for its long history of failed wars. Every single war after 1812 was fought under false pretenses and failed to achieve its stated goals. The Civil War devastated the South and ended slavery on paper, but not in practice. WWI destabilized Europe and led to the rise of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. WWII surrendered half of Europe to Soviet Russia. The Korean and Vietnam Wars escalated local conflicts and led to mass death while doing nothing to stop Communism. The Iraq War led to protracted suffering and death over a 10-year period and resulted in a new caliphate.

None of this is excused by pointing out that in all of these cases, the enemy was far more evil than the U.S. and was responsible for the majority of civilian deaths. We made things worse by intervening. The United States is hated and despised around the world because of its military adventurism, not because "they hate our freedom."

Defeating slavery, Nazism, Communism, Jihad, etc., were worthy causes, but they were betrayed by tyrannical leaders. We elected and re-elected those leaders of our own free will.

In the recent election, it looks like we've finally done the right thing and decisively rejected the neoconservative ideology. We need to make damn sure it sticks. If some future President tries to bring it back, we need to do what the Germans should have done to Hitler.

The Left has spewed a lot of anti-American nonsense and clouded our judgement. One of the things we've learned recently is that we don't have to talk to the Left any more. We're the new mainstream, and we're going to fix the country's problems without their help or advice.

TL;DR: The United States is morally flawed, but the Left is evil. We can address the former without surrendering to the latter.

#1: What is appropriate remuneration for past sins? Who determines and decides?#2: Who pays for past sins? Everyone who has benefit in any way? How do you even track that?#3: Who receives the remuneration? Clearly the dead ancestors cannot, and the living descendants are as much a product of what has occurred as the descendants of the sinners, for better or worse.#4: There's no clear demarcation for any of the above. No obvious bounds in any way.

Pursuing remuneration is utterly arbitrary, along many axis, I would say to the point of insanity.

So repentance is what? Clearly it's not reasonably material remuneration in this case, so what is it? Apologies? Acceptance of past sin?

Apologies help no one if they are not related to the actions of anyone present. They certainly don't help the descendants of the victims at all, except in the same manner they may help the descendants of the aggressors, that being by highlighting a mistake, a misstep, a sin so that it may not be repeated. If we know and acknowledge our history already (as we do), that much is pointless as well.

Here are the issues, Wulf:

Define repentance, because what I'm seeing said makes no sense whatsoever under my understanding of the word.

Define culpability. Culpability to whom? The dead? Culpability TO the dead FOR the dead? It has to be to their offspring, but in the matter, their offspring are almost certainly totally different people today than they would have been. Some are better off, some are worse off, and all are, ultimately, what they've made of themselves with relation to the framework that exists. You cannot compare them to a framework that does not exist, to attempt to do so is madness.

Ultimately, physical remuneration cannot be made, and spiritual remuneration is not owed by those who live or to those who live. Even if we empathize, of what use is spiraling into regret for things that cannot be changed? Recognize the sins of the fathers, accept them, move on.

I honor the Native American braves for giving the English slave society hell, forcing it to adapt, making free warriors out of some, for a time - before civilization's creeping scale completed its cross-continental march, shackling not just earth, but spirit, in the enervating web of dishonorable peace.

Why should soft creatures of peace judge their betters? Which of those ancestors would not sneer at the thought of apology? Better to apologize to them, by leaving one's station of slavery for the warrior's path. And this time, turn tomahawk and repeater against the Leviathan which betrayed and devoured both sides.

We don't need to pay reparations. We need to acknowledge our history and make sure it doesn't happen again. The treatment of the Indians is only one example of a long series of dishonorable wars that has continued to the present day.

What we owe to the descendants of Indian tribes and black slaves is fair treatment. The Indians either need property rights or political sovereignty, instead of being wards of the federal government. Black-majority cities need some kind of limited sovereignty, so they can stop blaming us for their problems.

On the subject of rewriting history, we should drop the sentimental attachment to our 50 states. Manifest Destiny was a mistake. Colonization was inevitable, but it would have been better to divide the continent between whites and Indians. We would have a smaller, more homogeneous, more governable country. Most of the heavy industry was concentrated in the Eastern states anyway.

It's important to realize that the dispossession of the Indians and the enslavement of the blacks actually harmed our country and made it less prosperous. It refutes the Left's claim that American prosperity was necessarily built on conquest and slavery.

@161. Okay, we're getting somewhere. Questions though:#1: What do you mean by property rights? Do you mean for existing reservations to be subdivided? Do you mean a "homesteading" provision on currently government held lands?#2: Political sovereignty... again it sounds like you're talking about either on the reserevtions, or on the homesteaded lands. Which? Neither, but something else?

Black majority cities receiving their sovereignty will never happen, for myriad reasons, among them:#1: They won't want to be segregated.#2: Those cities would almost instantly become devoid of absolutely everyone but black people.#3: They won't want to live in the conditions they create.

It'd be great if you could do it, but it won't happen, and some black people don't deserve to be forced into that sort of mess either, to be perfectly honest. If they all do, what's the logic saying that we ought to exclude ourselves from it? There isn't any.

It's pretty simple: Don't touch the poop. Don't mess with things you don't have to, and don't let other people do it either.

White flight will happen, and you don't let the government force them to "integrate" or "diversify". That problem will solve itself if you don't stick your hands in it. People that can get themselves out of the hellholes will, regardless of skin color, and those who can't won't. The people who can will be higher performers, more flexible and assimilative into outside society, and the people who can't will live exactly where they have caused.

You can't do it effectively with power or government intervention, so don't touch the poop. Let the problem solve itself and don't hinder it.

I don't know the details, as it's something that Indians and blacks will have to work out for themselves. We can facilitate it by restoring federalism and devolving government power back to the people.

I could write a book about how blacks would benefit from drug legalization, self-policing, free-market education, zero income taxes, and a bunch of other libertarian stuff. I have no intention of writing any such book, because nobody would read it. Change has to come from within.

Mexicans and Chinese don't need any White guilt to think they should have this country, that's just a hammer the Reds have given them to use against us. Had Whites arrived to find the continent wholly free of human inhabitants, Chinese would accuse us of genocide of the mammoths and saber-toothed tigers if they thought it would give them an edge.

I will apologize for being a member of a farming society that displaced a hunter-gathering society as soon as the Sumerians apologize to whoever it was that they drove off or exterminated. Yes, it's ugly to read about White vs Indian warfare and its cruelty. I might like to think that I'd never have cheated an Indian, but given a choice between watching my kids die of malnutrition in Europe or kicking somebody's ass in America, I'd likely have kicked the ass. Treaties were signed when they benefitted Whites, and broken when they benefitted Whites, simply another weapon in the war. No more shameful than Indian massacres of White children, just two peoples fighting for survival. No more shameful than Wetbacks taking American jobs and welfare, or us kicking them out and building a wall.

BTW, he's not here, but I'll agree with Buwaya Puti here that our seizure of the Philippines was uncalled for. Whites were no longer fighting to get the resources to feed themselves. The Spanish-American war was disgraceful, but I didn't do it, so I won't apologize for that either. I'll just decline to celebrate it.

Fenris Wulf wrote:Black-majority cities need some kind of limited sovereignty, so they can stop blaming us for their problems.Dream on. Blacks blame White people for the violence on their own streets, long since cleansed of anyone White. Their dysfunction is due to a general inability to connect effect to cause. They are truly irredeemable, and will be shunted off somewhere to either evolve or die. The sooner this happens the less damage they'll add to the incalculable total already heaped on America.

JuniperStation wrote:Collective guilt?? COLLECTIVISM??? Do you want to give that notion ANY credence?I'm already assigned collective guilt for slavery because I'm White, sexism because I'm male, islamophobia because I'm not down with taqiyya and hijrah...

That ship has sailed.

You are individually guilty of attempted genocide, because you're trying to convince me that acting against the former is un-Randian. Or something. Look, I know Randroids have narrow educations but yours is PARTICULARLY narrow.

I readily admit I am not well educated when it comes to history. I am happy to learn. Feel free to direct me to any reading material you think presents a compelling case.

My question is whether embracing identity politics is a winning strategy. You say that ship has sailed which imho strikes me as quite a concession. By agreeing to play your part in the identity politics dramatic narrative aren't you putting the nail into the coffin?

@97History was being censored and the "noble savage" was getting whitewashed even before the Civil War, and I think others have posted Mark Twain's mockery of Fenimore Cooper, as well as his own opinions about the Amerinds.

In some places--settled largely by Scots-Irish, which won't surprise you a bit--they still remember, though in recent years even they are under pressure to censor their history.

Yearly there is a very small local festival in Prestonsburg, Kentucky, to honor an Irish pioneer woman named Jenny Wiley, in which it is mentioned that her younger brother and three children, one an infant, were scalped and tortured to death in front of her by a Shawnee war party in 1789, and she was abducted and held captive by them and subjected to rape and beatings for nearly a year before she was able to escape from them. She gave birth to one of the rapists' children while captive, and the Shawnee, again, scalped the newborn and tortured him to death, forcing her to watch. Oh, and they also forced her to watch as they ate the infant's flesh. Modern accounts don't often mention that the Shawnee were cannibals. I guess that isn't PC.

Such accounts do not leave me filled with sympathy for the Amerinds, even if they were here first.

@161They will never stop blaming Whitey for their problems, just as they will never stop belligerently demanding gibsmedats. All we owe them is one-way tickets to Liberia, if that.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blogPlease do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.